Design of TeamWorkStation : A Real-Time Shared Workspace Fusing Desktops and Computer Screens

1. Design of TeamWorkStation: A Real-Time Shared Workspace Fusing Desktops and Computer Screens -Hiroshi ISHII -Masaaki OHKUBO Presented by: Bikash Mandal

2. Citation Detail • Title: • Design of TeamWorkStation: A real-time shared workspace fusing desktops and computer screen. • Authors: • Hiroshi ISHII and Masaaki OHKUBO, NTT Human Interface Laboratory, Japan. • Citation: • Ishii, H., and M. Ohkubo. "Design of TeamWorkStation: A real-time shared workspace fusing desktops and computer screen." Proceedings of IFIP WG8.4 Conference on Multi-User Interfaces and Applications, Crete, North Holland, • Reprinted in: • Readings in GroupWare and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration by Ronald M. Baecker on pp. 823-828.

3. About The Authors (1/2) • Hirosii Ishii • Associate Professor • Media Arts and Sciences, Tangible Media Group, MIT Media Laboratory • BE,ME, PhD (in EE) • Hokkaido University, Japan • Webpages: • Current: http://web.media.mit.edu/~ishii/ • Old:http://www.mediamatic.nl/whoiswho/ishii/ • Publications:http://web.media.mit.edu/~ishii/publications.html

4. Masaaki Ohkubo Human Interface Laboratories, NTT, Japan NTT Web Site: http://www.ntt.co.jp/index_e.html TeamWorkStation Site: http://web.media.mit.edu/~ishii/TWS.html About The Authors (2/2)

5. Gist of the Paper • Introduces TeamWorkStation (TWS). • How to overcome the fusing problem of computer and desktop (tables, drawing space, pencil etc.). • New techniques for real-time shared work space design.

6. Real-time Shared Workspace • Two approaches to realize RTSW: • Shared window based Groupware running on workstations • Often used with voice communication links • A computer based approach • Handle information stored in computer (by group) • Example: Cognoter, Dialogo etc. • Video and voice communication-based virtual shared spaces • Tele communication based approach • Can handle information outside of computers (faces. drawing surfaces etc) • Example: Media Space, CRUISER, VideoDraw etc.

7. Why TWS ? • In both approaches: • Information stored in computer and from desktop are dealt with separately. • Can never be fused • Users stuck with large discontinuity between computers and the desktop. • TWS overcomes this discontinuity by • Using video overlay techniques for fusing image • Providing “shareable desktop workspace”

8. Key Idea in TWS (1/2) • Requirement for Face-to-face collaboration • Performing the role of shared drawing surface. • Users must be able to shuttle between shared work space and their individual work space. • TWS design philosophy: • “overlay of individual workspace images” • Advantage of overlay function in TWS: • This satisfies above two requirements • Created with a live video image synthesis techniques

9. Key Idea in TWS (2/2) 3. Allows users to combine individual work space and drawing on overlaid image simultaneously. • TWS allows users to keep using their favorite tools even in shared environment. • Allows smooth transition between shared and individual environment (i.e. PC+Tabletop)

10. Implementation of TWS • TWS environment provides- • A shareable computer screen • Live video and audio communication links for face-to-face conversation

11. Components of TWS • Individual display • Shared display • Auto focus video camera • Wireless microphone and headphone • Small LCD display with speaker • CCD Camera

12. System Architecture • Uses five different communication networks: • RGB Video network • NTSC Video network • Voice Network • Input device network • Data network (LAN)

13. How overlay/fusing is done? (1/2) • RGB & NTSC network gather and distribute computer screen images, desk images and face images. • Overlay is done by using two devices: • Video composite equipment attached to NTSC video network. • Desktop video card installed in workstation • Overlaid images are distributed to shared screens or LCD display.

14. How overlay/fusing is done? (2/2) • Face images are captured by auto focus video camera • Desk image is captured by CCD camera. • Face images can be displayed on either shareable screen or LCD display via the video network.

15. Computer Sharing • Input device network supports connecting keyboard and mouse to the PC whose screen is shared in tele-screen mode. • It requires floor control mechanism.

16. Data Networks • It is used for: • Remote control and voice switches • Ordinary file sharing • Shared printing • Switch control program is written in HyperCard

17. Level and Modes of Collaboration • TWS supports three levels of collaboration and six modes of use. • It supports both overlaid and non-overlaid remote work space. • Users can choose the most suitable mode from these six modes and move from one mode to another as required.

18. Experimental use of WS (1/2) • TWS development was started in May1989 • From July 1989 author started using it for daily work like • Refining the designing of TWS itself • Writing papers • Daily communication

19. Experimental use of WS (2/2) • Interesting results from experimental uses: • Flexibility of selection and movement among various collaboration mode is very important. • Unnecessary and time wasting printing, coping, file/memo distribution can be avoided and effectively done by TWS • Face-to-face conversation link increases system flexibility. • Among six modes, screen and desk overlay mode is most interesting and could be used in remote consultation application.

20. Problems with overlay • The quality of video image is not sharp or stable. • Identifying the owners of the object (cursor,, draw object, window, icon etc.) on a overlaid screen is difficult when more than 3 screens are overlaid. • Since overlaid screen images are independent, scrolling of a document breaks the spatial relationship with the marks made on other screen.

21. Thank You….

22. ClearBoard: A Seamless Medium for Shared Drawing and Conversation With Eye Contact -Hiroshi Ishii -Minoru Kobayashi Presented By: Bikash Mandal

23. Citation Detail • Title: ClearBoard: A Seamless Medium for Shared Drawing and Conversation with Eye Contact. • Authors: Hiroshi Ishii and Minoru Kobayashi, NTT Human Interface Laboratory, Japan. • Citation: Ishii, H., and Kobayashi, M. (1992). ClearBoard: A Seamless Medium for Shared Drawing and Conversation with Eye Contact. Proceedings of CHI '92, ACM, pp. 525-532. • Reprinted in:Readings in GroupWare and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration by Ronald M. Baecker on pp. 829-836.

24. Hirosii Ishii Associate Professor Media Arts and Sciences, Tangible Media Group, MIT Media Laboratory BE,ME, PhD (in EE) Hokkaido University, Japan WebPages: Current: http://web.media.mit.edu/~ishii/ Old:http://www.mediamatic.nl/whoiswho/ishii/ Publications: http://web.media.mit.edu/~ishii/publications.html About The Authors (1/2)

25. Minoru Kobayashi NTT Human Computer lab, Kanazawa, Japan Project Site About The Authors (2/2)

26. Objective of the Paper • Introduces a novel shared drawing medium called ClearBoard. • It realizes two things: • A seamless shared drawing space • Eye contact to support real-time and remote collaboration by two users. • Develops a key metaphor: “Talking through and drawing on a transparent glass window”. • Uses “Drafter -mirror” architecture to implement the prototype.

27. Lesson from TeamWorkStation • Smooth transition between face-to-face conversation & shared drawing activities is essential in collaborative activities • In TeamWorkStation, there is seamsbetween image of participants and the shared drawing image. • Lack of eye contact is another problem in existing video conferencing system. • Eye contact plays an important role in face to-face conversation because “eyes are as eloquent as the tongue”.

28. Two problems of TeamWorkStation: Seams between windows Lack of eye contact ClearBoard solves both these problem Why ClearBoard ?

29. Previous Work (1/3) • Video Tunnel • A kind of video phone • Supports eye contact using half mirror technique • Developed in EuroPARC • VideoWindow • Wall size screen that connects remote rooms to support informal communication • Developed in Bellcore.

30. Previous Work (2/3) • VideoDraw • Supports shared drawing activities using video. • Supports drawing on a transparent sheet attached to the video screen • Developed in Xerox PARC. • Commune • A shared drawing tool based on digitizer and multi user paint editor. • Developed in Xerox PARC.

31. Previous Work (3/3) • Video Whiteboard • Uses shadow of users to convey the gestures of collaborators. • Developed in Xerox PARC. • TeamWorkStation • Already seen

32. Three Metaphors (1/2) • Metaphor 1: “Talking in front of whiteboard” • Advantage: All participant can share the common board orientation. • Disadvantage: Hard to implement mechanism to coordinate shared space. • Metaphor 2: “Talking over a table”. • Advantage: Suitable for face to face communication • Disadvantage: The orientation becomes upside down for one member.

33. Three Metaphors (2/2) • New Metaphor: “Talking through and drawing on a transparent glass window”. • Advantages: • Participant can see partners eye easily • Switching of focus between drawing space and partners face requires less eye movement. • Disadvantage: • Participant can not share the common orientation (left & right) of drawing space. • Solution technique: • Using mirror reversing of video image.

34. Design Requirement • Direct drawing on the display screen must be supported. • Video image of a user must be taken through (behind) the screen surface (to achieve eye contact) • Common orientation of drawing space (top, bottom, left, right) must be shared at both sides.

35. System Architecture • They explored two alternatives for the system architecture: • Liquid Crystal Screen Architecture • Drafter-mirror architecture • These two architecture satisfies all the requirements for ClearBoard.

36. LCD switches between two sates Light scattering Transparent In state (1) the screen works as a rear projection screen In state (2) users image is captured by video camera. Liquid Crystal Screen Architecture

37. Disadvantage of LCS • Disadvantage: • Transition frequency of LCD depend on its size • Hard to achieve high frequency that can provide ease to human eye. • Image flickering is a problem • High cost of LCD • So they went for the second alternative- “Drafter-mirror”.

38. Terminal is tilted with 45o. The video camera captures the drawing and the image of the user reflected by the half mirror. This image is sent to other terminal through video network This image projected on to partners screen from the rear Drafter-mirror Architecture

39. Experimental use of ClearBoard (1/2) • Benefit of ClearBoard : • Users can easily achieve eye contact when needed. • Users often worked collaboratively to coordinate the limited shared drawing space. • It provides “gaze awareness” or “gaze tracking”

40. Experimental use of ClearBoard (1/2) • Problems of ClearBoard: • Clarity of the image • Erasing partners mark • Double hand image • Recording of work results.

41. Thank you..

42. Beyond Being There -Jim Hollan -Scott Stornetta Presented by: Bikash Mandal

43. Citation Detail • Title: • Beyond Being There. • Authors: • Jim Hollan, Scott Stornetta. Computer Graphics and Cognitive Science Research Group, Bellcore. • Citation: • Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,1992 , Monterey, California, United States Reprinted in: • Readings in GroupWare and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration by Ronald M. Baecker on pp. 842-848.

44. Jim Hollan Professor, Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego B.A. (1969), M.S. (1971), and Ph.D. (1973), University of Florida Job History Publications About the Authors (1/2)

45. Scott Stornetta Computer Graphics and Cognitive Science Research Group, Bellcore. About the Authors (2/2)

46. Gist of the Paper • Discuss widespread held belief regarding the efficacy of imitating face to face communication in electronic media. • Discuss reasons for failing electronic communications • Investigate framework to explore for overcoming problem of electronic communications.

47. Being There-Observations (1/3) • Audio/video medium is much closer to the audio only medium than it is to face to face communication. • Seems like improving audio/video technology should improve information richness close to face to face communication.

48. Being There-Observations (2/3) • Several studies shows that: • “When you have choice between face to face and an imitation, no matter how good, it is natural to chose the real thing”. • Solution: • We must develop tools that go beyond being there.

49. Being There-Observations (3/3) • Interesting analogy (Crutch and shoe): • Using crutch is fine with a broken leg but odd when leg is recovered. • Wearing a running shoe is a need to improve performance. • In telecommunication research we have been perhaps building crutches rather than shoes.

50. How to achieve Beyond Being There • Approach in telecommunication: • A better way is to focus on comm part- not to the tele part of telecommunication. • E-mail communication improvement: • Authors suggest several projects in different directions • Authors also suggest hypothesis with each example project.